Ruth Ellen Brosseau

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

It is truly an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-18 for the third time. It is an omnibus bill, and I had a chance to examine it at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, where we did a thorough study and heard from many witnesses. It is therefore a real honour for me to talk about Bill C-18 again here today.

This is a rather complex bill. It is an omnibus bill that amends nine existing laws. We agree with several aspects of the bill. It does include some improvements, but as it is written, it could lead to many problems, which were identified at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I repeat, we cannot support this bill because there are gaps. It does not address all the needs of the agricultural sector. If you aim big, why not do things right? The witnesses mentioned that there were things missing in this bill. It is not enough to align our legislation with UPOV 1991 so that, as though by magic, everything is fixed. We have to consider mistakes made by other countries and have a good understanding of the Canadian reality to ensure that the changes we make are as comprehensive as possible. Unfortunately, as drafted, Bill C-18 does not do that.

In order to ensure that everyone understands what the bill is all about, I will quickly recap what Bill C-18 will do and the risks it entails.

First of all, Bill C-18 will move Canada from UPOV 1978 to UPOV 1991. This has a number of consequences for the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. According to the government, the UPOV 1991 treaty will give breeders additional protection and promote private investment.

The most important changes will expand the scope of plant breeders' rights, provide interim protection for a new variety and extend the term of protected rights.

Essentially, breeders now have the following exclusive rights: the right to reproduce propagating material; the right to condition, sell, export or import material; the right to make repeated use of material to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary; and the right to stock propagating material for the purpose of exercising other plant breeders' rights. When we look at this list it is hard to see where there might be a problem. The problem is that the Conservative government has extended the powers of plant breeders so much, in order to promote private investment, that they are at a much greater advantage compared to farmers.

Farmers have even lost the right to clean, trade and resell their seeds. What is more, plant breeders have the power to charge royalties to farmers at any time without any regard for their harvests. What we are being told is not reassuring: the competition among breeders will govern the balance of power and everything will be just fine.

It makes me wonder: why not ensure from the get-go that everything will be just fine by taking the valuable advice of our witnesses, protecting farmers' ancestral rights and limiting breeders' powers to charge royalties?

To sum up this part, Bill C-18 might help us move ahead by harmonizing the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act with UPOV '91 because it protects intellectual property and encourages innovation. The problem is that the way Bill C-18 is drafted, it might also set us back. In fact, it rolls back farmers' rights.

What is more, given the expansion of plant breeders’ rights under Bill C-18, it is likely that farmers will face increased litigation.

However, producers may well be on an extremely uneven financial playing field with plant breeders. There are no provisions in Bill C-18 to ensure that legal fees do not impede farmers’ defence in such cases.

As it happened in Germany, this bill's lack of clarity could lead to a number of legal loopholes that will clog our courts and place an additional burden on our farmers. In other words, Bill C-18 does not provide sufficient protection for farmers against the potential abuse of power by breeders. It is not balanced enough.

I would like to come back to the changes made in order to pass and amend legislation without going through Parliament. Now, laws can be amended through incorporation by reference. That means that any document can be included in the regulations associated with any of these acts through incorporation by reference. In other words, the current government can amend the act without Parliament's consent. This is nothing new. We have seen it in a number of bills introduced by this government.

The government and its senior officials justified this addition by saying that it was needed to ensure the act could be adjusted in response to various contingencies. Although I appreciate the government and its senior officials' commitment to efficiency, the amendments made to a law through incorporation by reference should be voted on or studied by the House or at least the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. That would be a good idea.

What is more, Bill C-18 grants the Governor in Council the ability to make significant changes to the governing of various products, including to safety provisions, without the parliamentary oversight of legislative change. For example, the Governor in Council could establish regulations concerning the manufacturing, sale and shipping of products between provinces without even consulting the provinces or the House of Commons.

These strengthened powers are in addition to the changes made to the minister's authority in various laws. From now on, the minister may, subject to the regulations, suspend, cancel or renew a registration or licence and exempt someone or something from one or more regulations. The minister can do what he wants without any conditions. At the risk of repeating myself, this type of power could politicize the agricultural industry.

If it so chooses, the party in power could favour one company or even an entire sector over another, without the consent of Parliament. We know that it can sometimes be cumbersome to present and approve these changes in the House, but this process is a necessary part of democracy. The agricultural sector must absolutely not become subject or vulnerable to political interests.

In conclusion, I want to say that I support innovation and the protection of intellectual property, but I believe we must ensure that all Canadian farmers and public sector researchers are protected. I want to be sure that Canadians have access to our agricultural heritage and that they can take advantage of it. We need to ensure that new seeds are just as good—if not better—than existing ones, and we need to protect universal access to our common heritage of public seeds.

We also need to ensure that farmers or their representatives have a say about how intellectual property laws are applied and about any regulatory changes that would affect them, by eliminating the minister's authority to regulate amendments and the rights to exemptions.

Although some claim that this bill is necessary for the agricultural sector, I cannot ignore the fact that this bill will create new problems, especially since witnesses told us the same thing and they suggested solutions. That is why we presented 16 amendments. It is very sad to see such a lack of openness on the part of this government.

However, I can say that I am very proud of the work our party has done and of the fact that we are against Bill C-18.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech.

I have a comment related to a question from my colleague from Hochelaga.

She talked about how important public research is. As we all know, the Conservative government has cut 700 research positions at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada since 2013.

I would like my colleague to comment on what kind of message the government's decision to cut 700 research and innovation positions sends about the importance of public research in Canada and the respect it deserves.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of payment protection for produce sellers, in October, agribusinesses in Canada lost their privileged access to the United States.

Will the government stop hurting fruit and vegetable farmers and harmonize its policies to better protect fresh produce companies when their clients go bankrupt?

[International Trade, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, over time, hundreds of high-quality Canadian cheeses have made their way to our tables.

However, the Conservatives have now opened our country's door to thousands of tonnes of subsidized European cheeses. The Conservatives promised a compensation plan, but we have yet to see anything one year later.

Where is the compensation plan for Canadian and Quebec dairy and cheese producers?

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Joliette for her speech this evening and also for the good work she does on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. I also want to mention what a good job she does representing her constituents. As members may know, the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé is right next to my colleague's riding of Joliette.

I just wanted to talk about the fact that 17,000 additional tonnes of cheese will be imported under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. I know that a number of stakeholders, especially in Quebec, had some serious concerns about this breach. A number of groups told us that if the agreement was implemented as is, it would undermine our supply management system.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the concerns in the province of Quebec, which produces a number of high-quality cheeses. Could she also talk about future trade agreements—perhaps the trans-Pacific partnership—about the uncertainty facing dairy farmers and about the future of supply management in Canada?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are entering the home stretch in the negotiations for the trans-Pacific partnership. New Zealand and the United States are demanding that we abandon supply management and yet the minister is saying that everything is going well. The stability provided by supply management allows us to maintain 215,000 jobs in the dairy industry in different parts of the country.

Will the government again sacrifice dairy producers on the altar of free trade, or will it protect supply management, which is so vital for our regions?

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I could answer by saying that I have a petition against Bill C-18 that elaborates more on a lot of the concerns that I brought up in my speech. These are people from my riding. I know as well that a lot of the members here in the House have submitted petitions because the farmers in their ridings, and even Canadians in cities, have had some grave concerns over Bill C-18.

Our amendments were balanced, made a lot of sense, and were not partisan. Everything we were asking for was based on what witnesses said at committee and on consultations that we had, because this bill has been around since December of last year, if I am not wrong.

There is a lot of concern. Yes, there are groups that support the bill, but then there are a lot that do not. We still have grave concerns when it comes to striking a balance with Bill C-18.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of the work he does on committee. It is a pleasure to work with him.

Yes, there are some groups in Quebec that do support this bill, but there are other groups that do not. When I talk to farmers in my riding about the agricultural growth act, Bill C-18, I find, first of all, that most of them have never heard of it; then, if they have heard about it and have looked into it, they do not see exactly how it would strike an appropriate balance.

In my riding, I have a lot of smaller farmers, but I also have an aging population, so we have to look at farm transfers. As well, we know that more and more people are getting involved in organic farming. We have had people and groups say as witnesses that this bill might not be the best for organic farming. It is kind of a one-size-fits-all approach.

What we asked for and what we looked for with our amendments is support and openness from the government, which we did not see at all. We do like some parts of this bill, but it is a one-size-fits-all approach, and the member summed it up very well in his comments about a made-in-Canada approach when it comes to UPOV '91. We could have made it better, and we did try.

There is another chance. We will have a vote on these amendments, so we will see what happens. I have to stay optimistic that we can make this bill better.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to speak to Bill C-18.

As with all of the government's other omnibus bills, I have a bittersweet relationship with this bill. There are some parts I like and some parts that really concern me. Our committee worked very hard to study this highly complex bill. A number of stakeholders came to testify as part of our study.

However, sadly, the amendments made do not reflect the majority of the requests made by these witnesses. My position is clear: the amendments made to Bill C-18 in no way reflect the requests of these witnesses. We are right back where we started. This bill raises a number of problems and concerns for both us and our agricultural partners, and I will go into more detail about this in my speech.

First, I will explain the implications of this bill; second, I will talk about the requests made by the witnesses and the work my party has done to try to counter the negative effects of this bill; and then I will conclude by listing the many problems that remain in this bill and that make me very concerned and bitter about the fact that it was passed.

I remind members that this bill would amend nine federal acts: the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act, which is under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

This bill appears to be the most significant change to agriculture and agri-food in our country's history. This bill amends many existing acts, and these amendments affect nearly everyone involved in the agricultural sector as well as their relationships with each other. That is why we must be cautious, to ensure that the bill does not create uncertainty or confusion.

This bill also has the advantage of protecting intellectual property, promoting innovation and potentially supporting foreign investment. These are all aspects that my colleagues in the NDP and I support. However, it was very important to ensure that none of these aspects come at the expense of Canada's agricultural heritage. The NDP has nothing against innovation, as long as it does not violate any rights. This bill forces a number of changes on the agricultural sector, and these changes are worrying a lot of people.

The witnesses we heard from were clear. This bill is good as a whole, but it needs quite a bit of clarification and more than a few amendments. I would like to go over some of them. Stakeholders want farmers' rights to be clarified and protected vis-à-vis plant breeders' rights. They call for the restriction or removal of ministerial powers to unconditionally disallow farmers' rights and privileges through regulatory change. They call for clarification and controls around when breeders can require farmers to pay royalties. In addition, they want explicit protection for seed cleaners.

My NDP colleagues and I were there for all of the testimony. We did our homework and we proposed at least 16 amendments to this bill—common-sense amendments that were all rejected, unfortunately.

Our party proposed amendments in the interest of a balanced approach between protection for plant breeders and for agricultural producers. Our amendments would have ensured that all participants could benefit fully from these ambitious changes.

For example, with respect to farmers' privilege, our amendments included the rights to trade, sell and clean seed, which is what stakeholders asked for. That amendment was rejected.

Many of our amendments suggested that the minister's power to exempt farmers' rights and privileges without any conditions should be subject to an assessment by Parliament.

This change was meant to prevent the agricultural sector from becoming politicized. These amendments were also rejected.

Another one of our amendments would have clarified and set limits on the places where plant breeders can collect royalties in the process. Many stakeholders said they were worried about the fact that the royalties they had to pay could be claimed at any time and do not take into account the quality of their crops. Our amendment was rejected.

Lastly, one of our amendments was meant to protect producers from prosecution when they did not intend to break the law. I think it is just common sense that people should not be prosecuted when a violation is accidental and not the result of negligence. Even though that amendment really made sense, it was rejected.

In other words, all the work the NDP did to try to make this bill an acceptable piece of legislation was dismissed out of hand by our Conservative colleagues. As it stands, Bill C-18 could create many problems.

I said before that we were back at square one and it is true. The many problems raised about Bill C-18 still exist. I will name three.

First, the bill does not take a balanced approach at all and will benefit only a handful of players to the detriment of another group. The NDP believes that a balanced approach is essential when it comes to plant breeders' rights. This bill is not consistent with that view.

Second, farmers' privileges are not adequately protected. In fact, in agricultural sector jargon they are known as privileges, but the stakeholders usually see them as rights. Rights are not taken away so easily. No one should be allowed to have such power, and if such power is needed, then there should be a system of checks and balances.

Third, along the same lines, I think it is unacceptable for the minister to have such broad powers. To justify putting so much power in the minister's hands, the Conservatives are saying that the department needs to be able to adapt the law as quickly as possible if complications should arise. It is not a bad idea, but they seem to be forgetting the adverse effects of this type of practice. The government's decisions on agriculture could quickly become political. The House of Commons should at least have the right to review these exemptions. I am concerned, and I am not the only one.

In closing, I have the distinct impression that we are back at square one. The concerns that I raised today are very similar to the ones I raised in my last speech on Bill C-18. I am disappointed that although a number of stakeholders came and testified in committee, almost none of their recommendations were considered in the amendments put forward by the Conservatives.

What is worse, in his testimony the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that he would clear up the problem with regard to farmers' rights. However, instead of proposing amendments based on the recommendations made by witnesses, he proposed a token amendment that does not go far enough.

The governing party continues to turn a deaf ear. It does not want to collaborate in order to avoid potential excesses. What is more, this bill favours some stakeholders over others.

I am deeply disappointed, but I take comfort in knowing that we warned the Conservatives. It is therefore with pride in the work that we have accomplished that I oppose this omnibus bill.

[Employment, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Fondation des entreprises en recrutement de main-d'oeuvre agricole étrangère joins the NDP in denouncing the bungling of the temporary foreign worker program. Because of the Conservatives' mismanagement, Quebec farmers have lost more than $53 million. Farmers just want the rules to be clear and known in advance.

Will the minister get his program in order and stop hurting Quebec farmers?